Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals under the GST Law : The Ticking Clock of Justice

Author: Priyansh Sharma 15 Oct 2025

The condonation of delay in GST appeals is governed by specific time limits prescribed for different appellate levels. Under Section 107 of the CGST Act, an appeal to the Appellate Authority must be filed within three months, with a further condonable period of one month if "sufficient cause" for the delay is demonstrated . For appeals to the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) under Section 112, the condonable period is three months beyond the primary three-month limit, in the earlier indirect tax laws regime the acts use to be far more liberal in allowing the filing beyond statutory period, if facing any hardships regarding finding case laws under GST laws regarding condonation you alwys hav option to look for any former regime.

A key issue, particularly relevant to your query, is whether the time spent pursuing a rectification application under Section 161 can be excluded or constitutes "sufficient cause." The judiciary holds divergent views on this. The Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Madras High Court have adopted a liberal interpretation, holding that the time spent pursuing a bona fide rectification application should be excluded from the limitation period . Conversely, the Allahabad High Court has taken a stricter stance, ruling that the CGST Act is a self-contained code and its timelines are absolute, meaning delays beyond the statutory condonable period are non-condonable, even if a rectification was pursued in good faith .

Other recognized grounds for "sufficient cause" include medical emergencies, technical glitches on the GST portal, legal misadvice, and natural calamities, which are assessed by appellate authorities and courts on a case-by-case basis .

1. Statutory Framework for Condonation of Delay

The CGST Act, 2017, provides a multi-tiered appellate structure, with each level having distinct provisions for the condonation of delay.

1.1 Appeal to the Appellate Authority (First Appeal)

Governing Provision: Section 107, CGST Act, 2017.
Time Limit: An appeal must be filed within three months from the date of communication of the order or decision .
Condonation of Delay: As per Section 107(4), the Appellate Authority may allow an appeal to be presented within a further period of one month if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by "sufficient cause" from presenting the appeal within the initial three-month period . This creates a maximum statutory window of four months.

1.2 Appeal to the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT)

Governing Provision: Section 112, CGST Act, 2017.
Time Limit: An appeal by a taxpayer must be filed within three months from the date of communication of the order . Departmental appeals have a six-month window .
Condonation of Delay: Section 112(6) empowers the GSTAT to condone a delay of up to three months beyond the prescribed limitation period, provided it is satisfied that "sufficient cause" prevented the filing of the appeal in time .

1.3 Appeal to the High Court

Governing Provision: Section 117, CGST Act, 2017.
Time Limit: An appeal must be filed within one hundred and eighty days from the date of communication of the GSTAT order .
Condonation of Delay: The High Court has the discretion to entertain an appeal after the expiry of 180 days if it is satisfied that there was "sufficient cause" for the delay. The statute does not prescribe an upper limit for the condonable period at or after this stage making an appeal in the Supreme Court .

1.4 Appeal to the Supreme Court

Governing Provision: Section 118, CGST Act, 2017.
Condonation of Delay: This section stipulates that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, relating to appeals to the Supreme Court shall apply. The CPC contains provisions for condoning delays, which would be applicable to these proceedings .

2. Judicial Interpretation of "Sufficient Cause"

The term "sufficient cause" is not defined in the CGST Act. Its interpretation has been shaped by a considerable body of jurisprudence, generally favouring a liberal and justice-oriented approach to ensure meritorious cases are not dismissed on purely technical grounds .

A significant point of contention is the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown.

Liberal Interpretation: The Calcutta High Court has held (S.K. Chakraborty & Sons Versus Union of India & Ors [2024] 123 G S.T.R. 229) that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to GST proceedings, as it is not expressly or implicitly excluded by the CGST Act. This allows for condonation even beyond the statutorily prescribed maximum period (e.g., beyond the 3+1 months under Section 107) in deserving cases .
Strict Interpretation: The Allahabad (Shri Ram Ply Product Thru. Its Partner Shri Arun Kumar Jindal Versus Addl. Commissioner Grade 2 Appeal State Tax Sitapur And 2 Others 2023 (75) G.S.T.L. 288 (All.)) has adopted a stricter interpretation, holding that the CGST Act is a self-contained code with its own limitation mechanism. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable, and no delay beyond the period specified in the Act can be condoned by the authorities .

3. Summary of Circumstances for Condonation of Delay

The following table summarises the circumstances judicially recognised as potential grounds for condoning delay in filing GST appeals.

Circumstance	Relevant Provision / Principle	Key Judicial Precedents / Circulars
Pendency of Rectification Application	Section 161, CGST Act; Bona fide pursuit of an alternative remedy.	Time Excludable: • Arvind Fashion Limited v. State of Haryana (P&H HC): Held that the period spent pursuing a rectification application must be excluded when computing the limitation period for an appeal . • SAS Hotels and Enterprises (Madras HC): Condoned a 58-day delay, holding that the genuine pendency of a rectification application constitutes "sufficient cause" . Time Not Excludable • Garg Enterprises (Allahabad HC): Ruled that the CGST Act is a self-contained code and delays beyond the four-month statutory limit under Section 107 are non-condonable, even if rectification was pursued in good faith .
Medical Emergencies / Serious Illness	Principle of "Sufficient Cause" under Sections 107(4), 112(6), etc.	• Engineered And Innovative (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Allahabad HC): Condoned a 95-day delay where the Managing Director was suffering from Tuberculosis, accepting medical documents as proof . • Shaik Abdul Azeez v. The State of AP (Andhra Pradesh HC): Acknowledged the petitioner's health issues as a valid reason for delay . • Generally recognized as a valid ground if supported by documentary evidence .
Legal Misadvice / Counsel's Error	Principle of "Sufficient Cause". The mistake must be bona fide and not a device to cover negligence.	• A Madras High Court decision condoned a delay of one week caused by an error from the assessee’s accountant, observing that taxpayers should not be penalized for representatives' mistakes where no mala fide intent is established . • Generally accepted as a ground if the mistake is genuine and the litigant has acted with due diligence .
Technical Glitches on GST Portal	Principle of "Sufficient Cause".	• Widely accepted as a valid ground, especially in the initial years of GST implementation. Courts have taken a liberal view where taxpayers face genuine difficulties with the portal .
Lack of Communication of Order	Section 107(1) states the limitation period commences "from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated."	• V.R. India Trader v. State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan HC): Clarified that limitation begins from the date of communication, not the date of issuance of the order . • Lack of proper service of a Show Cause Notice or cancellation order has been held to be a valid ground to condone delay . • DK Enterprises v. Union of India (Delhi HC): Held that service via email was sufficient and there was no violation of natural justice if the assessee was aware of proceedings .
Natural Calamities / Force Majeure Events	Principle of "Sufficient Cause"; Extraordinary events beyond the appellant's control.	• Recognized as a valid ground for condonation, including government-imposed lockdowns and pandemic-related disruptions . • The Supreme Court's suo motu extension of limitation during the COVID-19 pandemic underscores this principle, though its direct applicability to GST timelines was clarified by CBIC .
Administrative / Procedural Delays	Principle of "Sufficient Cause".	• Delay in obtaining certified copies of orders or other relevant documents from authorities is a recognized ground for condonation .

4. Case Commentaries on Landmark Decisions

The following commentaries analyze key judgments that have defined the contours of condonation of delay in GST and allied tax laws.

Case 1: Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. v. M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Supreme Court, 2020)

Brief Facts: The assessee filed an appeal under the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act, 2005, beyond the maximum condonable period of 60 days. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal as time-barred. The assessee then approached the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226, which the High Court entertained, quashed the assessment order, and remanded the matter . The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Can the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, entertain a challenge to an assessment order when the statutory remedy of appeal is time-barred and the delay is beyond the maximum period that can be condoned by the appellate authority?
Reasoning and Decision: The Supreme Court unequivocally held that the High Court cannot do what the statutory appellate authority is barred from doing. It reasoned that the remedy of appeal is a creature of statute, and the legislature has prescribed a specific period for redressal. Disregarding this statutory period under Article 226 would render the legislative scheme otiose. The Court emphasized that when a statute commands that something be done in a particular way, it must be done in that way alone, and other methods are implicitly forbidden. The Court held that the High Court had erred in entertaining the writ petition when the statutory remedy had been extinguished by limitation .
Impact on GST Litigation: This judgment is a cornerstone for the strict interpretation of limitation periods in tax laws. It significantly curtails the ability of taxpayers to bypass the statutory timelines of the CGST Act by approaching the High Court under Article 226 as a matter of routine. It reinforces the principle that writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy and not an alternative to a time-barred statutory appeal, thereby lending strong support to the view that the 3+1 month limit under Section 107 is absolute.

Case 2: Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur (Supreme Court, 2008)

Brief Facts: The case pertained to the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as it was filed beyond the condonable period prescribed in the Act.
Issue: Whether the Commissioner (Appeals), an authority under a special statute, has the power to condone a delay beyond the period specified in that statute by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Reasoning and Decision: The Supreme Court held that the appellate authority, being a creature of the statute, is bound by its provisions. When the statute provides for a specific limitation period and a further specific period for which delay can be condoned, it implies that any delay beyond that cannot be condoned. The Court reasoned that the specific inclusion of a condonation period within the special law (the Central Excise Act) indicated a clear legislative intent to exclude the general, and potentially unlimited, condonation power available under Section 5 of the Limitation Act .
Impact on GST Litigation: This is a foundational precedent relied upon by numerous High Courts to hold that the CGST Act is a self-contained code. The reasoning in Singh Enterprises is directly applied to Section 107 of the CGST Act, leading to the conclusion that the first Appellate Authority lacks the jurisdiction to condone any delay beyond the one-month period specified in Section 107(4) .

Case 3: S.K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India (Calcutta High Court)

Brief Facts: The petitioner's appeal under the CGST Act was rejected by the appellate authority on the grounds that it was filed beyond the maximum four-month period, and therefore, the authority had no power to condone the delay.
Issue: Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is applicable to appeals filed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, thereby empowering the appellate authority to condone delays beyond the one-month period mentioned in Section 107(4).
Reasoning and Decision: The Calcutta High Court adopted a liberal interpretation. It relied on Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, which makes its provisions applicable to special laws unless expressly excluded. The Court observed that Section 107 of the CGST Act does not contain any language that expressly or by necessary implication excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the absence of such an exclusion, the Court held that Section 5 would apply, and the appellate authority could condone a delay beyond the 3+1 month period if sufficient cause was demonstrated .
Impact on GST Litigation: This decision represents the most prominent contrary view to the strict interpretation. It provides a legal basis for taxpayers to argue for condonation even in cases of significant delay, provided the reasons are genuine and compelling. However, it is important to note that this view has not been widely accepted by other High Courts and remains a point of judicial divergence .

Case 4: Kaajal Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, Chennai (Madras High Court, 2025)

Brief Facts: The petitioner received an adverse assessment order. Instead of filing an appeal immediately, the petitioner first filed a rectification application under Section 161 of the CGST Act. This application was eventually rejected. By the time the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107, there was a delay of 67 days, which was beyond the initial three-month period but within the condonable one-month period. The appellate authority, however, dismissed the appeal on grounds of limitation
Issue: Does the bona fide pursuit of a rectification remedy under Section 161 constitute "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay in filing an appeal under Section 107?
Reasoning and Decision: The Madras High Court held that the delay was genuine and constituted "sufficient cause." The court observed that the petitioner had not been negligent but had pursued an alternative statutory remedy in good faith. It reasoned that a taxpayer should not be penalized for attempting to resolve an issue at the earliest available stage. The court found that rigid application of limitation provisions in such circumstances could lead to a denial of justice. It condoned the delay and directed the appellate authority to hear the appeal on its merits, subject to the pre-deposit conditions .
Impact on GST Litigation: This judgment provides significant relief to taxpayers who opt for rectification before filing an appeal. It establishes that the time spent in bona fide rectification proceedings is a strong ground for seeking condonation of delay. This pragmatic approach prevents the procedural trap where a taxpayer is forced to file a protective appeal while a rectification application is still pending, thereby promoting judicial efficiency.

5. Remedy Beyond the Statutory Condonation Period

When an appeal is barred by limitation and the delay exceeds the maximum period that can be condoned by the statutory authority (e.g., more than four months for an appeal under Section 107), the only available remedy is to file a writ petition before the jurisdictional High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . The High Courts exercise this extraordinary jurisdiction sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances involving a gross miscarriage of justice, violation of natural justice, or factors entirely beyond the taxpayer's control .